Just looked at End of the Harvest on IMDb and cannot imagine how a work of fiction is going to help the discussion. Rather than presume to have me waste an hour of my life, why don't you summarize the parts that you feel would be enlightening?

First, let's point out that none of these are argument for god. At best they are arguments for something supernatural, but no part of this is anywhere close to be an actual argument for the judeo-christian god.

But there is something then...It's God for me and for the christian, it's Allah for the muslim, etc...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

I will be returning to this point as tick through each part of this, so I wanted to lay the groundwork first. Okay:
The problem with first causes is that they lead to infinite regression. If Y created Z, then what created Y? Must have been X. Well what created X then? W?

Unfortunately for the purposes of my analogy we can eventually determine that A was the first cause, but for the purposes of the actual logic, there is no end. Hence the "infinite" in "infinite regression".

God is the alfa and the omega.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

However, our brain, being what it is has a very difficult time accepting this. Conflicting logic says, "well the whole thing had to have started somewhere!!!". And that's fine. Let's accept that yes, it did indeed all have to start somewhere.

But why is that answer "god"? Why isn't it "satan"? Or the titans, or the flying spaghetti monster, or magic fairiers with magic fairy dust? What evidence do any of us have for one of these fantastic ideas over any of the others? How could we possibly verify them?

Again, there is something. And that is against atheism, for them there's nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

Most importantly, how can we rule out a perfectly logic explanation that can be verified by science and requires no superstitious supernatualism at all? Decades of research into quantum physics brings us closer and closer to such an explanation. At some point in the future we'll be smart enough to be able to build the equipment necessary to test our predictions. At that point, there will be a few less gaps for god to hide in.

We aren't there yet to see what that explanation will be. Maybe the explanation it's God itself...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

The appearance of design is not evidence of design. Furthermore, even if it were considered evidence of design, it tells us nothing about the designer.

So not only do we not have any supportable argument for design, we have no supportable argument for the identity of the alleged designer. Unfortunately for the speaker, we have more than 150 years of scientific research that shows that not only is a designer not necessary, a designer is highly improbable at worst and highly incompitent at best.

However, there's a possibility that there's is a designer, and I beleive that it exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

At this point I feel confident that I do not need to repeat that even if we were to accept that morality required an external source, that we would not be able to determine what that source is.

Also similar to the examples above is that scientific research continues to offer up natural explanations that make supernatural hypothesis unnecessary (recent research with mirror neurons, etc). Even if that were not the case, we have centuries of moral philosophy that are capable of showing that we can discover morality on our own, if it took the science a long time to be able to figure out how we do it.

I would like to see that.

My time is valuable to me also, so I will answer to you whan I have more time left.

This is just my opinion, I hope everyone respect that, as I respect yours.
Thanks.

But there is something then...It's God for me and for the christian, it's Allah for the muslim, etc...

Without evidence we have no reason to believe that this is true. That doesn't mean that we can rule it out, but it also means that there is no wisdom in accepting it as true. Compound that by the fact that you are taking a guess at which of these imaginary figures is the one you're "supposed" to be following.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

God is the alfa and the omega.

You are aware that because some guy wrote that down on a page, that doesn't make it true, correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

Again, there is something.

But you can't say what that something is. Saying that it is god is 1) undefendable and 2) doesn't tell us anything useful about our universe. I could say that its the flying spaghetti monster and we would both have to accept that we're just guessing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

We aren't there yet to see what that explanation will be. Maybe the explanation it's God itself...

Just as it could be invisible pink unicorns. What is your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

However, there's a possibility that there's is a designer, and I beleive that it exists.

The odds of there being a designer are orders of magnitude more unlikely than natural explanations that render such a hypothesis unnecessary.

I acknowledge that you are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but belief does not make something true or useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

I would like to see that.

Which?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

My time is valuable to me also, so I will answer to you whan I have more time left.

Fair enough. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

This is just my opinion, I hope everyone respect that, as I respect yours.

If you have argument worth respecting, then I will be happy to respect them.

I'll spend 5 minutes here or 5 minutes there taking on apologist arguments than have been refuted a thousand times, but some film student's senior project is asking for too much.

This wasn't a senior project, it's just an old movie...I apologized for being rude, if you keep this up I'm going to apologize again for apologizing in the first place, I red all of the crap that you gave me, why don't you watch the movie

Looks like a fruit cake to me. - Brutus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q

I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.

All that tells me is that you weren't reading for comprehension. Of course, I could already determine this from your subsequent responses, which means that while you may have taken the time to read the words on the screen, you didn't bother to devote any time to applying what they meant to your thinking. In other words, you didn't really read them at all.

Being agnostic and stuff, I guess I'd have to take a neutral stance on this situation... Anyway, you guys can't really touch each other. If a person believes on faith, then you can't really touch them or truly affect them. Some may call this stubborn or ignorant of the 'truth' (in whatever way one sees it) - but the faithful pride themselves on being able to claim belief in a thing that is illogical; to some, and hard to believe.

So essentially, the only outcome for this thread will probably be all of the non believers gathering together in one corner, grunting comments like "How idiotic. - He believes in God? - Religious hick. - Clutch that Bible tight, it'll make you feel better!"
Then the believers gathering together in the other corner, sharing thoughts like, "What barbarians! - These angry people are truly lost. - Doesn't he understand? - I'll have the last laugh!"

So yeah, even though there are no spamming of exclamation points and rants written out in CAPS; highlighted in red, too. Even with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation in all of our statements, this is nothing more than a fight (a bloody brawl is more like it) on the internet. ... and we all know how those end... Just like the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded.

But by all means, continue. It's great reading both points, I'm using it as a learning opportunity. Looking at both sides, how they rationalize and shoot down (or attempt to) each other's points, is a great thing to watch. It really reveals the minds of people, exposes them, it's interesting. Two ideologies combating each other is entertaining food for thought.

But it's still sad seeing anyone fight... tearing us in two... Can't we all just get along?

So essentially, the only outcome for this thread will probably be all of the non believers gathering together in one corner, grunting comments like "How idiotic. - He believes in God? - Religious hick. - Clutch that Bible tight, it'll make you feel better!"
Then the believers gathering together in the other corner, sharing thoughts like, "What barbarians! - These angry people are truly lost. - Doesn't he understand? - I'll have the last laugh!"

At the end of the day, that might be the case. But wouldn't it be awesome if someone actually learned something though?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiE23

So yeah, even though there are no spamming of exclamation points and rants written out in CAPS; highlighted in red, too. Even with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation in all of our statements, this is nothing more than a fight (a bloody brawl is more like it) on the internet. ... and we all know how those end... Just like the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded.

How is a discussion on the internet different from one in person? If two people discussing opposing viewpoints are retarded for doing so here, then they are retarded for doing so anywhere. And if our options are groupthink and retardation, I think I'll take my chances with retardation

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiE23

But by all means, continue. It's great reading both points, I'm using it as a learning opportunity. Looking at both sides, how they rationalize and shoot down (or attempt to) each other's points, is a great thing to watch. It really reveals the minds of people, exposes them, it's interesting. Two ideologies combating each other is entertaining food for thought.

I would tend to agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiE23

But it's still sad seeing anyone fight... tearing us in two... Can't we all just get along?

That's a nice thought and I agree that such a scenario would probably be preferable. However, I don't think that all situations can have compromised outcomes. There are certain things that most people recognize as being absolutes.

What we have here are fundamentally different views of the world. In each case, the reality (or at least the perception of reality) is that the beliefs of others have an impact on everyone. People that believe that acts of nature such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc are god's punishment for the sinful actions of humans have a vested interest controlling the actions of sinners. They understand that they just can't live and let live, because if their neighbor is sinful and god decides to punish that city, then their lives and the lives of their families are at risk. So these people vote for similarly minded politicians that will act to implement laws that are consistent with their values. But on the other side of the coin, we have people that see their rights and freedoms being restricted based on a belief/value system that they do not share. So the conflict, by it's very nature, is not (and I do not believe can be) live and let live. Both sides have something at stake, and their beliefs are in directly opposed to one another's.

To your point, one would think that intelligent people might be able to sit down and choose to examine the merits of each side of the argument. The problem is that there is no common language. Unfortunately, the religious argument is completely insulated from rational thought, so trying to have an intelligent conversation about the matter fails every time. In the best case scenarios you might here something like, "I know it doesn't make sense, but I choose to believe anyway". In the worst case scenarios, you'll probably hear arguments chocked full of fallacious thinking like, "You cannot prove that [insert name of preferred magic invisible sky daddy here] doesn't exist". So how in the world can we have compromise when rational thinking isn't even possible? How diametrically opposed groups hope to find middle ground when they can't even agree on a basis for examining the merits of a belief?

People that believe that acts of nature such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc are god's punishment for the sinful actions of humans have a vested interest controlling the actions of sinners. They understand that they just can't live and let live, because if their neighbor is sinful and god decides to punish that city, then their lives and the lives of their families are at risk. So these people vote for similarly minded politicians that will act to implement laws that are consistent with their values.

These are not christians ideals. I'm against that type of though too, but if you think that all those people that "believe that acts of nature such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc are god's punishment for the sinful actions of humans have a vested interest controlling the actions of sinners" are christians, then you're wrong.

Well, they aren't your interpretation of christian ideals anyway. That doesn't mean that a great deal of christians don't hold an opposite view that they are "christian ideals".

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

I'm against that type of though too, but if you think that all those people that "believe that acts of nature such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc are god's punishment for the sinful actions of humans have a vested interest controlling the actions of sinners" are christians, then you're wrong.

Nope, they are 100% christian. They just cherry-pick the bible differently than you do.

I think the point you're trying to make is that these views are not representative of all christians, and I would agree. However that only a small comfort. Moderate and liberal variations of christianity still act as a buffer for this kind of thinking, and are therefore part of the problem, even if they don't realize it/agree with the more extreme viewpoints.

Those views are 100% anything. There are radicals and extremists in every religion and every beleif.

Again, with the people who try and say that a god does not exist and work towards proving it. This being, fictional or not gives people faith and hope. Why would someone want to take that away from someone else?

Those views are 100% anything. There are radicals and extremists in every religion and every beleif.

Again, with the people who try and say that a god does not exist and work towards proving it. This being, fictional or not gives people faith and hope. Why would someone want to take that away from someone else?

I agree with you Vikinor, and with you Achilles (except the part when you say they are 100% christians).

I also understand your concern and your reasons to change those people thoughts. But I think unbelieving people that God exist is not the best way.
Maybe helping them to change their way of interpreting the Bible. What do you think?

Those views are 100% anything. There are radicals and extremists in every religion and every beleif.

I think you may be overshooting the point. Liberal views of christianity are 100% in alignment with the parts of the bible that those christians consider relevant. Same thing goes for moderate christians, conservative christians, and fundamentalist christians. The problem is that there isn't a single objective interpretation of the bible. There cannot be as it was written by many authors with many agenda during different times and in different cultures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikinor

Again, with the people who try and say that a god does not exist and work towards proving it.

How does one prove that something doesn't exist? For instance, how would you prove that invisible pink unicorns aren't real? How does this differ from being skeptical of any claims regarding invisible pink unicorn barring some sort of objective evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikinor

This being, fictional or not gives people faith and hope.

Believing that I might win this week's lottery might also give me hope. Doesn't mean that it's true. It also doesn't mean that I wouldn't be delusional if I walked around insisting that it will happen either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikinor

Why would someone want to take that away from someone else?

Because holding these beliefs has an impact on everyone. I thought you congratulated me on making that point earlier

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

I agree with you Vikinor, and with you Achilles (except the part when you say they are 100% christians).

Okay. On what basis do you disagree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

I also understand your concern and your reasons to change those people thoughts. But I think unbelieving people that God exist is not the best way.

I would say that this is like stating that helping people learn to live without alcohol isn't the best way to help them not be alcoholics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexrdias

Maybe helping them to change their way of interpreting the Bible. What do you think?

Who gets to decide which interpretation is right? If god's ways are mysterious because his nature is so far beyond our comprehension then don't you think it makes sense that we blindingly follow every "suggestion" that he makes, regardless of whether it makes sense to us or not? If god tells you to murder disobedient children and people that pick up sticks on the sabbath, don't you think it would be a good idea to do what he asks? Who are you to question whether that is moral behavior or not?

Being agnostic and stuff, I guess I'd have to take a neutral stance on this situation... Anyway, you guys can't really touch each other. If a person believes on faith, then you can't really touch them or truly affect them. Some may call this stubborn or ignorant of the 'truth' (in whatever way one sees it) - but the faithful pride themselves on being able to claim belief in a thing that is illogical; to some, and hard to believe.

So essentially, the only outcome for this thread will probably be all of the non believers gathering together in one corner, grunting comments like "How idiotic. - He believes in God? - Religious hick. - Clutch that Bible tight, it'll make you feel better!"
Then the believers gathering together in the other corner, sharing thoughts like, "What barbarians! - These angry people are truly lost. - Doesn't he understand? - I'll have the last laugh!"

So yeah, even though there are no spamming of exclamation points and rants written out in CAPS; highlighted in red, too. Even with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation in all of our statements, this is nothing more than a fight (a bloody brawl is more like it) on the internet. ... and we all know how those end... Just like the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded.

But by all means, continue. It's great reading both points, I'm using it as a learning opportunity. Looking at both sides, how they rationalize and shoot down (or attempt to) each other's points, is a great thing to watch. It really reveals the minds of people, exposes them, it's interesting. Two ideologies combating each other is entertaining food for thought.

But it's still sad seeing anyone fight... tearing us in two... Can't we all just get along?

thank you for putting it in that err, colorful way, I do agree.

Looks like a fruit cake to me. - Brutus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q

I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.

It's been my experience that people don't have a 5-year plan for adopting rational thinking. Truth tends to come in epiphanies. There is a certain percentage of people with whom I converse that I know I'll never get through to. However, if my dialog with them is "overheard" by someone else and what I say has value for them, then I'm still having some effect.

EDIT: EW, I think this video may make some of my points better than I have.

In what do you believe anyway? I mean, who/what created the universe and all?

Did you not pick up on the fact that he's an atheist who believes in evolution...?

@Achilles

Thank you for the link - It was very interesting.
A couple of things:
Firstly, I agree with the idea that he described - God caused the big bang and then evolution and such followed. So some of this was lost on me because I'm also sad for anyone who actually feels that Earth is 4000 years old.

Second of all, I thusly know that the Holy Bible can't be completely correct. But the errors in words written by humans (with human biases and perceptions) about something divine do not convince me that God Himself can not exist.